There wasn't really a global warming "hiatus." Corrected analyses show no slowdown

[fskimospy]

Define catastrophic global warming. What level of warming would, based on peer reviewed literature, be catastrophic for the human race?

Sea level rise is out, we just agreed on that.
Drought, storms, hurricanes, rains, flooding all show no statistical change in frequency or severity from the past. So we can throw those out too.

None of those things are out, and we most certainly didn't agree on that.

Feel free to read the IPCC's report on the likely effects of warming over the coming decades.

 

[dank69]

So you're saying we might see housing costs in New York City and San Francisco fall in line with the rest of the country?

Pretty sure NYC would be under water.

 

[ivwshane]

Who cares? At the slow rate that we're heating up the earth, most things will evolve in order to adapt. We're not making the Earth worse, just different.

Yeah for shortsightedness and unintended consequences!



/s

 

[blankslate]

Naval defense contractors?

they win temporarily, but they also probably live near the places they'd working at... so once they get paid that extra for dealing with the Naval costs for sea level rise that extra goes into their own housing relocation so that's a wash.

Pretty sure the guy was talking about humans not fish, corporations or the lizard people who own them.


...

 

[dphantom]

None of those things are out, and we most certainly didn't agree on that.

Feel free to read the IPCC's report on the likely effects of warming over the coming decades.

I have. Catastrophe not found.

So, again, define what you think catastrophe is. You keep avoiding it seems.

 

[Nebor]

Yeah for shortsightedness and unintended consequences!



/s

That's ridiculous. You're saying you should never do anything if you don't know exactly what's going to happen? Think of it as a grand experiment! Think of the cool evolutionary adaptations that might come of this. Maybe a fox with 2 foot tall ears for cooling himself in the desert? Or a horse that feeds itself via photosynthesis!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Then over the next 100 years, it's suggested that it may rise another 2 meters. That puts Miami significantly below sea level, in an area frequently impacted by hurricanes. To put it another way, a reasonable course of action is to decide to simply gradually abandon Miami.

I thought you were supposed to be making an argument explaining why global warming is bad...

 

[fskimospy]

I have. Catastrophe not found.

So, again, define what you think catastrophe is. You keep avoiding it seems.

Well there you go then. We've actually already had this discussion before. I am not interested in putting down exactly what does and does not constitute a catastrophe. As the IPCC report clearly shows we will suffer large costs from climate change.

To suffer those costs to act as a prophylactic against some imagined future cooling is absurd.

 

[PokerGuy]

So even if we are to assume that the projections are correct (and thusfar, they've been laughably bad), there's still no real evidence of "catastrophic" consequences, nor is there any realistic and feasible plan that has been shown to "solve" the "problem". Yeah, sounds just like we're in great position to take drastic actions now, we've got it all figured out 😉

 

[fskimospy]

So even if we are to assume that the projections are correct (and thusfar, they've been laughably bad), there's still no real evidence of "catastrophic" consequences, nor is there any realistic and feasible plan that has been shown to "solve" the "problem". Yeah, sounds just like we're in great position to take drastic actions now, we've got it all figured out 😉

Thanks for inspiring me to add another rung to the climate denial ladder!

1. Global warming is a lie, therefore do nothing.
2. Even if it's true, scientists don't know because of a newspaper story about global cooling, therefore do nothing.
3. Even if scientists do know it's happening we can't say man is causing it, therefore do nothing.
4. Even if we can say man is causing it the consequences won't be bad, therefore do nothing.
5. Even if we can say the consequences will be bad we can't stop it, therefore do nothing.
6. Even if we can stop it China and India won't go along, therefore do nothing.
7. Even if China and India will go along it's too expensive, therefore do nothing.
8. Even if it's cost effective compared to the alternative fuck you, you're a commie.

 

[K1052]

Proof to support such a statement?

Do you read the links you post?

 

[IGBT]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06...e-temperature-history-to-eliminate-the-pause/

‘Pause-Buster?’ Scientists Challenge New Study Attempting to Erase The ‘Pause': Warmists Rewrite Temperature History To Eliminate the ‘Pause’

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: 'The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus: Fact or Artifact?'

Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "Ironically, the global warming establishment has simultaneously tried to deny a 'pause' while at the same time making up endless excuses for the 'pause'." See: It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming
'This new study fails to examine satellite data which now shows an 18 year 6 month standstill in global temperatures. See: June 3 2015: Global warming standstill/pause increases to ‘a new record length': 18 years 6 months’ - The global warming 'pause' is alive and well.'

Physicist Dr. Fred Singer on claims: 'Don't believe it. The Pause is real and in all other data sets.' - 'NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces. It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris

Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Chip Knappenberger: 'The extend of the largest SST (Sea Surface Temperature) adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.'

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: "The global surface temperature data sets are clearly a moving target. So while I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama Administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you read the links you post?

The irony is thick here. The study summary I linked clearly indicated geothermal warming...I must assume that either you didn't read it or perhaps didn't understand it. You're wrong...time to put on your big boy pants and admit it.

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html

According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth's continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.

Here's the study abstract:

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070

Heterogeneous hydrologic, lithologic, and geologic basal boundary conditions can exert strong control on the evolution, stability, and sea level contribution of marine ice sheets. Geothermal flux is one of the most dynamically critical ice sheet boundary conditions but is extremely difficult to constrain at the scale required to understand and predict the behavior of rapidly changing glaciers. This lack of observational constraint on geothermal flux is particularly problematic for the glacier catchments of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet within the low topography of the West Antarctic Rift System where geothermal fluxes are expected to be high, heterogeneous, and possibly transient. We use airborne radar sounding data with a subglacial water routing model to estimate the distribution of basal melting and geothermal flux beneath Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica. We show that the Thwaites Glacier catchment has a minimum average geothermal flux of ∼114 ± 10 mW/m2 with areas of high flux exceeding 200 mW/m2 consistent with hypothesized rift-associated magmatic migration and volcanism. These areas of highest geothermal flux include the westernmost tributary of Thwaites Glacier adjacent to the subaerial Mount Takahe volcano and the upper reaches of the central tributary near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice core drilling site.

 

[soulcougher73]

Conservatards gonna tard

 

[Jaskalas]

Pretty sure NYC would be under water.

If what they believe is 100% true, then we're already there at 400ppm. If we stopped all CO2 tomorrow, NYC would still be under water in a few decades.

 

[K1052]

The irony is thick here. The study summary I linked clearly indicated geothermal warming...I must assume that either you didn't read it or perhaps didn't understand it. You're wrong...time to put on your big boy pants and admit it.

What evidence is there of geothermal heating affecting the Ferrigno Ice Stream? That's certainly not what the story you posted claims, rather that the orientation of a previously unknown geological feature (a giant ice filled valley) substantially affects how the ice stream functions.

Thawaites is several hundred miles away.

 

[dphantom]

Well there you go then. We've actually already had this discussion before. I am not interested in putting down exactly what does and does not constitute a catastrophe. As the IPCC report clearly shows we will suffer large costs from climate change.

To suffer those costs to act as a prophylactic against some imagined future cooling is absurd.

of course you cant. there are none for the foreseeable future.

You want to cry doom and catastrophe but when it comes to actual defining what that looks like you go run and hide. You cannot dare to make any kind of definitive statement because they will be challenged and likely disproved over the coming years. We are already seeing solid research showing ECS to be lower, in some cases much lower than IPCC AR5 reports. Even AR5 is taking baby steps in downsizing ECS.

Thank goodness we have good research still going on despite the tremendous wave of pressure to censor any study/scientist that would purport to say anything but man is the primary (only) cause of todays warming trend.

 

[dank69]

At this point I think our only option is to have Obama propose we build new coal plants. That way Limbaugh can tell all these idiots how bad it is for our climate since he is the only one they listen to.

 

[Subyman]

Thanks for inspiring me to add another rung to the climate denial ladder!

1. Global warming is a lie, therefore do nothing.
2. Even if it's true, scientists don't know because of a newspaper story about global cooling, therefore do nothing.
3. Even if scientists do know it's happening we can't say man is causing it, therefore do nothing.
4. Even if we can say man is causing it the consequences won't be bad, therefore do nothing.
5. Even if we can say the consequences will be bad we can't stop it, therefore do nothing.
6. Even if we can stop it China and India won't go along, therefore do nothing.
7. Even if China and India will go along it's too expensive, therefore do nothing.
8. Even if it's cost effective compared to the alternative fuck you, you're a commie.

Number 4 is actually a serious consideration and I even discussed that case with my advisor during my time in graduate school. There have been studies targeted to certain regions to quantify the effect of a warming scenario on that region. From what I recall, some areas greatly benefit and therefore that region would be politically motivated to not only save money by not actively engaging in warming mitigation, but they'd have an incentive to want global warming.

The midwestern portion of the US would greatly benefit from a slight warming scenario. Certain regions of China would experience very negative effects.

So even if we do get to a point where people generally accept climate change and accept that humans play a role, then we will still have to contend with folks that will benefit greatly from it happening. The real motivator will be if wealthy countries happen to be in the negative zones at a greater proportion relative to the positive zones.

 

[OverVolt]

So in a decade they managed to prove the direction of the temperature. Now for them to prove the other 999 predictions by 2500 when we'll all supposedly be dead 🙂.

I'm just being sarcastic as I don't really care all that much about global warming. Using less resources is good and all, and our current trajectory is unsustainable but trying to make it into a climate doom & gloom issue is dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

of course you cant. there are none for the foreseeable future.

You want to cry doom and catastrophe but when it comes to actual defining what that looks like you go run and hide. You cannot dare to make any kind of definitive statement because they will be challenged and likely disproved over the coming years. We are already seeing solid research showing ECS to be lower, in some cases much lower than IPCC AR5 reports. Even AR5 is taking baby steps in downsizing ECS.

Thank goodness we have good research still going on despite the tremendous wave of pressure to censor any study/scientist that would purport to say anything but man is the primary (only) cause of todays warming trend.

No, we've just had the discussion before and you were no more amenable to evidence then as now.

Maybe Paratus will have the patience to do it, but considering you've ignored everything he has tried to treach you too I am not hopeful.

 

[Paratus]

Number 4 is actually a serious consideration and I even discussed that case with my advisor during my time in graduate school. There have been studies targeted to certain regions to quantify the effect of a warming scenario on that region. From what I recall, some areas greatly benefit and therefore that region would be politically motivated to not only save money by not actively engaging in warming mitigation, but they'd have an incentive to want global warming.

The midwestern portion of the US would greatly benefit from a slight warming scenario. Certain regions of China would experience very negative effects.

So even if we do get to a point where people generally accept climate change and accept that humans play a role, then we will still have to contend with folks that will benefit greatly from it happening. The real motivator will be if wealthy countries happen to be in the negative zones at a greater proportion relative to the positive zones.

That becomes a geo-political issue. It's a good point to make. However o
in the U.S. with Texas, Florida, New York, and California all having major coast lines I think the political will would be there to mitigate climate as sea-levels rise IF it was politically possible to do so.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Still waiting to hear a good explanation how people paying more money in this country will solve this. Particularly when you have places like China who would be a far larger contributor to any such problems.

I also expect everyone who believes we are the primary (sole) reason for any global warming to walk the talk, give the federal government extra money, live in small places with the absolute least energy usage possible, get rid of your cars, etc. Do what you preach, or shut up.

 

[finglobes]

Watching people fall for the climate hysteria despite the charade being revealed over and over and over has gone from sad to depressing to scary. Its an age of morons.

 

[Paratus]

So for the, "models sucks", "we don't know anything", and "it's other dimensions quantum crack pipe" crowds, consider this.

Those same thermal models, based on conservation of energy, were used to design the International space station and every other space vehicle ever flown.

Do you want to know why none of them have spontaneously frozen or over heated, (without a hardware failure)?

Because

• The models work
• We know how to use them
• Weird quantum dimensional fluctuations don't actually affect objects on a macro scale in that way. (Seriously put the pipe down)

It's also the basis for the radiators in your car, the cooler on your CPU, and the heat exchangers at your local power plant.

So if you don't want to sound like a hippy liberal soccer mom from San Francisco taking about toxins in vaccines or a conservatard creationist idiot going on about how fossils were put there to trick us, then stop making dumbass pronouncements that anyone with a modicum of a scientific background knows is bullshit.

(BTW you maybe able to prove conservation of energy is false by spewing prodigious amounts of bullshit from nothing, but the production of BS makes methane which causes warming and would be man-made 😉 )